said that he has been assured by a top-level demolitions/engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, not plane crashes and fires.

and

During the hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel's record of engaging in outrageous attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies to cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.)

Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have been some original terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli Mossad, with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern governments and terrorist groups alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked the operation to its own ends, orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack on America designed to be blamed on its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that the Mossad operation that became 9/11 would have been aided and abetted by certain corrupt American leaders.

Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the "loose nukes" rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war--which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

I've had an opportunity to listen to the interview. Hart offers a novel explanation of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, asserting (at about 33:00 of the mp3 of the interview) that the Liberty was monitoring Israeli actions to make certain that Israel did not "take land" from Jordan and Syria. This, according to Hart, was the condition of a deal Israel had with the Johnson administration for its permission to go to war with Egypt. Hart offers no evidence to support this apparently implausible motive. The program's host asks Hart why Israel would go to the trouble of sinking the Liberty to conceal territorial gains which were readily apparent. Hart, after several digressions, asserts that he finds it "highly likely" that President Johnson would have called the Israeli leadership and instructed them to immediately retreat from territorial gains against Syria and Jordan if the Liberty had not been sunk.

Hart then calls the Liberty incident a war crime, and says (at 35:50 of the mp3):

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty was that there is nothing that the Zionist state might not do to its friends as well as its enemies to get its own way.

Hart concludes this pseudo-history by defining Zionism as a war by Jews against the rest of humanity. This explains, he says, the mindset behind a deliberate attack on an ally.

In response, Kevin Barrett, the program's host, states (at 40:45 of the mp3):

This actually lends some credibility to the people who argue that 9/11 -- whatever happened on 9/11 -- that it wasn't what we've been told. That whoever ordered the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center -- there are those who argue that Israel, its Mossad and its U.S. allies could have done it, and that it was essentially a Mossad operation. And there are others who say "that's ridiculous. How could a little country like Israel do something like that?" Well ... if you look at the Liberty incident ... it's not clear that there's really any limit to what the Israeli hawks think they can get away with in terms of attacking America.

Hart replies:

I'm going to break a rule now. I mean, you mentioned 9/11. Basically, in public, I don't talk about it because it makes you such a target for abuse and false charges of anti-Semitism and everything, doesn't it?

Barrett breaks in to heartily agree. Hart continues:

Hart: So basically, I've stayed away from it because it give them the focus to take the attention away from your main message. But, since you've mentioned it, I'll tell you what I honestly believe. I think it probably started out as an all Muslim operation, okay? But I think it would be very quickly penetrated by Mossad agents. I detail it in my book. From almost the moment Israel was born, it had its agents penetrating every Arab government, every Arab military organization, and every Arab terrorist group, whatever. So they certainly would have penetrated this. And at some point they said to the bad guys in the CIA, "this is running, what should we do with it?" And the neo-cons said "let's use it".

The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes. Now I'm going to tell you in passing that one of my friends is a consultant for one of the world's leading engineering firms. I'm not going to name him. They've studied the films and they've found that there's no doubt whatsoever that the planes were brought down... sorry, that the towers were brought down by controlled ground explosion. And then we have the film of the -- what is sometimes called the five dancing Israelis. Are you aware of that Kevin?

Barrett: I certainly am. They were celebrating the attacks. They had set up to film before the attacks and they were high-fiving and flicking cigarette lighters in front of the twin towers.

Hart: That's right. But the point is that they all had mobile phones. Right?

Barrett: Right.

Hart: Now they were initially reported as being Muslims. Are you aware of that?

Barrett: Um... Middle-easterners.

Hart: (Impatiently) Alright, middle-easterners. But the impression was that they were Muslims -- they were the bad guys.

Barrett: Right.

Hart: So the FBI gave chase, and these five guys, they tried to avoid being arrested. But they were eventually caught, and they were arrested. And guess what. They were all Mossad agents.

Barrett: That was confirmed by the Forward.

Hart: That's right. It's established fact. It suggests that they knew that it was going to happen. It was possible, and this is Alan Hart speaking, that the planes were fitted with transponders, and these guys were calling in the planes to the targets. It's not impossible.

Barrett: I suppose not. These are many possibilities, but the possibility of remotely-guided planes is a good one, being that, if one had planned a very complex demolition of three skyscrapers which would have been the three largest buildings taken down in history by controlled demolition, one would have to make sure that they were hit in order to justify that.

Hart: And isn't it the case, Kevin, that quite a lot of your top pilots have said that it would have been a bloody difficult job to drive those planes into those buildings.

Barrett: Well, that's right. I've had a number of pilots who are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth come on my show, and they said that the clocked speed of the aircraft, when it hit the South Tower, was nearly 600 miles per hour at sea level. And that's a speed that, well, some of them say that these 767 aircraft couldn't possibly reach that speed at ground level. They would be torn apart at substantially lower speeds than that by the air pressure of the much thicker air at sea level. But, in any case, that nobody in their right mind could claim that it would be possible to guide a plane at that speed at sea level and hit those targets in the way they were hit.

Hart: So the speculation is that were fitted with some kind of transponder and they were called to the target electronically is not totally irrational?

Barrett: Uh... well no it's not, and in fact, it's even somewhat questionable whether normal passenger aircraft would be able to do that consistently at that kind of speed. In any case, it seems very doubtful that pilots who couldn't even solo in a Cessna would be performing these amazing stunts to hit their targets.

Hart: Well, that and two other things Kevin. We know as a fact that at least six and maybe nine of the alleged hijackers who died are in fact alive and living in...

Barrett (interrupting): Well, that's right. And that's confirmed in Jay Kolar's article "What we now know about the 9/11 hijackers", which was published, actually, in a volume by Europe's top scholarly outfit (inaudible). It's amazing that the scholarly literature is all so one-sided. There's no scholarly counter-literature except for...

Hart (interrupting): Except for "how dare you be so anti-Semitic". That's the only counter-literature.

Barrett: Right, right. And then there's Cass Sunstein's counter-literature published in the Harvard Law Review. He's that Harvard guy who's advising Obama...

After Barrett discusses Cass Sunstein's article on how to counter conspiracy theories, Hart spends several minutes detailing how Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were likely conspirators in planning a Pearl Harbor-like attack (i.e. 9/11) designed to involve the U.S. in a war with Iraq. After discounting the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, Hart claims that

The reason why the Israelis are hyping up Iran is to take attention away from the continuing Zionist colonization and genocide in Palestine.

Barrett replies by citing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists Gordon Duff and Alan Sabrosky to the effect that the Mossad carried out 9/11 and that many in the U.S. military establishment know this to be so. Hart responds by saying that he knows Sabrosky and respects him. Then he drops the big one, so to speak. He unleashes a conspiracy theory for the ages, claiming that Israel has been covertly supplied with a nuclear weapon by Dick Cheney, who Hart calls "Dr. Strangelove". Hart speculates that this nuke is still in the United States and the Israelis intend to detonate it here as a "false flag" operation designed to implicate Iran.

Barrett: Do you have any sources where we could follow up on this?

Hart: I would have to dig deeply into my computers to find this, but it's been very well documented.

With that dismissive statement, Hart leaves the listener to either wonder in amazement at the audacity of such an undocumented claim, or to cower in fear that his tin-foil hat will fail to protect him.

The interview can be heard via a player embedded on Hart's website here or at a website called noliesradio.org. A direct link to an mp3 of the interview is available here.

By the way, in the course of the interview, Hart makes several less sensational if equally false arguments, including claims that Israel's existence has never been threatened by its enemies ("not in 1948, not in 1967, not even in 1973") and that the 1967 war "was a war of Israeli choice and aggression". These run-of-the-mill, doctrinaire falsehoods are hardly surprising coming from a man who believes that the World Trade Center attack was accomplished by Mossad-operated remote control planes and planned demolitions and Israel will soon be nuking the U.S. to cover up a genocide in Palestine, but I thought it worth mentioning if only to show that, however extreme his current conspiracy theories may be, Hart is nothing if not a monomaniacally consistent ideologue. The facts, and even a desire to maintain a semblance of sanity, has never interfered with his spinning a good anti-Zionist yarn.

From the truthjihad website:

UPDATE #1 (May 28, 2010):

Bloggers at a truther website called 9/11blogger.com have picked up on this interview and on my reaction to it (read here). They are for the most part supportive of Hart and Barrett, although a few raise questions as to why Hart would make such explosive charges (so to speak) without having any supportive documentation or even being better identify his sources or, for that matter, cite any evidence. One blogger at that website points out that, as with Alan Sabrosky, it is the news that someone with the appearance of an impressive resume is making that charge that makes the charge notable. I would point out to them that, both in the case of Hart and Sabrosky, this veneer of expertise is hardly sufficient to cover the paranoia and bigotry underlying their fraudulent conspiracy theories. As I intend to write here within the next few days, Sabrosky has been dining out on his having worked at the Army War College in the 1980s and his allegedly having a Jewish grandparent, hardly enough to compensate for his promoting without any evidence whatsoever the charge that most of the military elite in the U.S. believe the Mossad responsible for 9/11, a charge with is patently false. Similarly, Hart unintentionally reveals just how foolish and reckless he is by making his extreme charges without any documentation -- and even asking his interviewer if the charges seem plausible -- all the while falling back on his having been a TV reporter many moons ago in order to lend some credence to his drivel.

For the most part, however, those at 911blogger.com support Hart's charges. They link to a conspiracy theory website called propagandamatrix.com where a blogger called Paul Joseph Watson has posted an article which swallows Hart's charges hook, line and sinker. His headline: "Top Construction Firm: WTC Destrtoyed by Controlled Demolition". Watson describes Hart as "Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter". He goes on to write:

Given his biography and standing, Hart's comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres. Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.

On of the bloggers at 911blogger points out that the cartoon posted above, which I found on Kevin Barrett's website, was authored and originally published by a Nazi website. I haven't verified this. Any readers with information about the source of that cartoon should feel free to comment here.

24 comments:

I'm a bit surprised by the extremity of Hart's charges. Hart's career as an anti-Israel activist is built to some degree on maintaining the appearance of sanity. As a former journalist with a sonorous voice and an ability to ad lib in public appearances, he serves an important PR function. When he starts talking about remote-controlled planes operated by dancing Mossad agents, "controlled ground explosions", and Israeli false-flag nuclear attacks on the U.S. designed to cover up a planned genocide of Palestinians, the mask of respectability, such as it is, has slipped. That's why I wrote about this.

By the way, I wonder what Hart's good friend Ilan Pappe has to say about this. He should go on the record as to whether this sort of "discourse" has a place in his movement.

I must admit, it is GREAT fun watching you shills flounder around as more people wake up to the Israeli role in 9/11.The Col. Jennys,Arabesques and other well known disinfo shills are really starting to get angry that its no longer just about blaming Bush and arabs for the attacks. Losing your grip and I love it!

Kudos to Adam Holland for at least publishing the comments of those with opposing views. I didn't expect that.

Adam, you point out that Dr. Alan Sabrosky and Alan Hart provide little evidence for their assertions about Israel's role in the 9/11 attacks (both had very little time to do so in the interviews). As you can see from my comment above, I've listed the evidence in some detail at my own blog. How do you respond now that that information has been made available to you?

The first link you provide as evidence goes to a blog that you maintain consisting of links to a variety of conspiracy theory and hate websites blaming Jews for everything except the weather. That's hardly proof of anything other than your ideological beliefs. The second link goes to a page providing an abstract of a study by the best known truther scientist Steven Jones (see below) claiming that he found an explosive called thermite near the WTC. The third link goes to a detailed report based on the theories of Stephen Jones. His theories regarding the WTC being destroyed by thermite have been disproved when subjected to peer reviewed analysis by the best in the field, as I understand it. Is there some reason that the best scientists and engineers would be in on some kind of conspiracy to suppress information that would confirm Jones' thermite theory? If so, what would that be?

I'm more than willing to let you post this stuff, but you should try instead to argue the scientific facts with an expert in the field, if that's you inclination. You should have no problem finding many who disagree with your conclusions.

In any event, if you are so convinced of the truth of your beliefs, how do you explain the internal contradictions in the movement's contentions, its absurd charges of time travel, holograms, space aliens, teleporting, and, most relevant here, dancing Mossad agents operating planes via remote control cell phones and transponders. That's what Hart alleges. This is your idea of 9/11 truth? Give me a break!

You say that the evidence listed at my blog is "hardly proof of anything other than your ideological beliefs" based solely on the fact that you don't like some of the websites I link to, which is not surprising considering that you see 'anti-Semitism' everywhere you look, but do you dispute the veracity of the information I provide? I suspect all you did was hover over the links. Much of the information comes from mainstream sources like Salon, Haaretz and Fox News, reproduced on other sites. Is Fox also a "hate website"?

You ask me: "how do you explain the internal contradictions in the movement's contentions, its absurd charges of time travel, holograms, space aliens, teleporting, and, most relevant here, dancing Mossad agents operating planes via remote control cell phones and transponders." But you are clearly attempting to discredit important, compelling evidence by associating it with the conjecture of nutters and fools, rather than addressing the serious stuff. There is a mountain of evidence linking Israel to the 9/11 attacks and no credible evidence implicating cave-dwelling Muslim fanatics.

You also claim that the scientific study by Steven Jones, Niels Harrit and seven others has been disproved under peer review. I provided you with a reference when presenting my case: would you kindly do the same? If the Active Thermitic Materials paper has been proven to be flawed, I'd like to know about it. I'm open to new information. Thanks in advance.

Adam: You're right, the USS Liberty incident is not a good example of a false flag attack, since Israel failed to sink the ship, but had they gotten away with it they surely would've been happy to blame it on Egypt. So more accurately, it was a foiled false flag attempt, but undoubtedly a false flag operation.

The problem with your sources isn't that I "don't like them" so slander them unjustly as bigots, as you baselessly claim. The fact of what they are and what you are should be readily apparent to any fair observer. If readers want to, they should see for themselves. They should go to your blog, "Crimes of Zion", and follow its links. The bulk of them go to a handful of websites with no purpose other than the promotion of conspiracy theories concerning Jewish control of the world. You can reject the label anti-Semite if you want to, but you'd be putting lipstick on a pig as far as most people are concerned.

If you'd care to describe how you came to the conclusion that Jews carried out 9/11 and are have succeeded in concealing this, knock yourself out. Do you agree with Alan Hart about remote control cell phones and dancing Israelis? Do you agree with him about Israel planning to nuke an American city to cover up a genocide they plan to carry out in the Middle East? Do you agree with Alan Sabrosky that a vast conspiracy within the U.S. military is concealing their knowledge that Israel carried out 9/11? Sabrosky now calls the vast majority of American Jews traitors. Do you agree with that? If you do, then why do you reject being called an anti-Semite? That would seem to be your main point, wouldn't it?

By the way, do you have any problem using material taken directly from neo-Nazis? Apparently, Kevin Barrett doesn't.

Good job of transcribing Hart's 9-11 nuttery. I am struck by how convincing he can sound when expounding on topics like the 6-Day War, where I'm not any kind of expert. But the moment he got into the 9-11 nonsense, I realized he's just another garden-variety kook.

Believe me Pat, on the Six Day War, he's not much of an expert either, in spite of his having reported on it. His ideological biases have utterly overwhelmed his powers of observation, as evidenced by this interview.

You failed to indicate what you didn't "find credible" in this piece. In fact, there are no factual errors in it, as you must admit. You have a right to your opinions, but not your own facts. If you can cite some error in this piece, knock yourself out. If you can't, the reader can just chalk it up as another baseless charge from someone who seems to specialize in them.

For those interested in reading Gordon Duff's blog, start here, with the articles tagged with the subject "Jews".

You will find those defenders of anti-Semitism Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir, and an article which implies that Zionists work for the devil. You can also read Duff's Duff's own columns defending Holocaust deniers such as Bishop Williamson of the SSPX. Within two paragraphs of one of Duff's columns, he first defends himself not as a denier of the Holocaust, but a skeptic advocating minimizing the Holocaust:

"The true story of the holocaust is, historically, much different than the one told but I see nothing so far to tell me that it is totally different."

He then goes on to claim that the use of gas chambers to kill Jews is not only unproven, but that it has not been researched or documented, and that the history has been falsified by some nefarious conspiracy:

"If people want to dig around in gas chambers or try to prove something didn’t happen, let them. Make them prove it. It would be nice if honest and competent historians studied the era free of prejudice and turned out a supportable history of Germany during the Nazi era. The one we have is almost a total lie. Germans know this but few others do."

And yet he says he is not a denier.

Gordon Duff says that he will "take Alan Hart over Adam Holland". Take him. You deserve each other.

One last point on Gordon Duff. He claims not to be a Holocaust denier, yet takes a position that is more extreme than that taken by David Irving. Remember that Irving has reversed his former denial of the Auschwitz gas chambers -- his position from 1988 until the last few years. (Read here.) Irving now argues implausibly that his prior denial of the gas chambers existence merely referred to Auschwitz per se, not to its satellite camps.

To recap: Gordon Duff implies that the existence of the gas chambers has not been proven nor credibly researched; David Irving says that their existence has been thoroughly documented and proven beyond a doubt.

Duff claims he is not a Holocaust denier, merely a skeptic, but he has taken a position more extreme than the man known as the world's foremost Holocaust denier. Why should anyone take the word of such a person on any subject? When it comes to the truth, he's a skeptic. When it comes to implausible, hateful lies, he's a true believer.

On the point of whether Stephen Jones et al's paper has been discredited in peer-reviewed journals......it hasn't because Jones et al never published in peer-reviewed journals, so there can't be a paper in peer-review journal critiquing what has never been published in peer-reviewed journal.

Jones et al chose to publish in Bentham, a pay-to-publish journal, from which the editor resigned following publication.

To respond to this vanity-press article, it would require the authors paying over $600, on top of doing the work to point out the flaws.

However, the papers have been thoroughly rubbished, both in terms of its methodology and its conclusions. The chain of custody of the samples is the most obvious flaw to a layman - though that's never addressed by Troofers.

Nor have Jones et al provided anybody else with samples of their dust.....so it has been impossible for anybody to either repeat or repeal the findings of Jones et al.